Gauging The Constitutional Integrity of Marriage In America

originally posted by: macman
There is a religious aspect to the joining of a man and woman.

To the religious only.

originally posted by: macman

originally posted by: Annee
The idea of 300 million people self governing is scarier.

To whom exactly??

And there you have it! OPINIONS!
To Annee, the idea of 300 million people self governing is scary.
To you, it is not.

To you, marriage is a religious institution.
To me, it is not.

These are OPINIONS. Not legalities.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Actually, marriage does matter. Studies have shown that it does matter to children. Believe it or not, they are aware of the permanence of the union between their parents.

And I never said that gay union can't provide stability. It's a more temporary stability in that another function of marriage historically was to provide for clear lines of inheritance. When you know how the property is being handed down, it's another aspect of societal stability.

Homosexual unions provide temporary stability. Try the thought experiment of colonizing Mars with a purely homosexual colony of homosexual married couples. How long will the stability last?

There are reasons why you won't find successful historical societies that endorsed homosexual unions, even if they were tolerant, even accepting, of homosexual behavior themselves. You might consider it. Greeks, Romans, Japanese ... all had places in their societies for homosexuality, but none had homosexual marriage. Why? Romans allowed for adoption, but no homosexual marriage.

Understand here that I am not arguing against the idea of homosexual unions, but trying to clarify what marriage is/has been and why societies that wish to be successful generally endorse marriage for their citizens. It has less to do with love, something your government cares nothing about, and more to do with the functions a marriage provides to the overall society as a whole.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic
Deep breath

Going down these roads of absurdity again.

Picture this:

1. hetero couple adopts 10 children - - they are applauded and are a real representative of helping stabilize society

2. homosexual couple adopts 10 children - - there must be something wrong.

1. Couple who's been trying for years to get pregnant - - finally uses IVF with success. They are brought up in front of their church congregation, applauded, and heralded as finally being blessed by God (through science of course).

2. a legally married homosexual couple choose IVF to have a family. That's just wrong.

originally posted by: ketsuko
Actually, marriage does matter.

Did I say that marriage doesn't matter? I said marriage isn't necessary to have a big, healthy, stable family.

It's a more temporary stability in that another function of marriage historically was to provide for clear lines of inheritance.

Why is it more temporary? Gay couples have children who inherit their legacy. What are you talking about here?

Try the thought experiment of colonizing Mars with a purely homosexual colony of homosexual married couples. How long will the stability last?

Why are you talking about Mars and a PURELY homosexual society? If that's the only way you can argue my point, I'm afraid it's lacking. We're talking about 5-10% of the population not 100%. And Mars? Give me a break.

You might consider it. Greeks, Romans, Japanese ... all had places in their societies for homosexuality, but none had homosexual marriage. Why? Romans allowed for adoption, but no homosexual marriage.

You are incorrect. In fact, Egypt was condemned by the Israelites for their acceptance of homosexual marriage.
Same-sex Unions throughout Time

Evidence exists that same-sex marriages were tolerated in parts of Mesopotamia and ancient Egypt. Artifacts from Egypt, for example, show that same-sex relationships not only existed, but the discovery of a pharaonic tomb for such a couple shows their union was recognized by the kingdom. Meanwhile, accounts of the Israelites' departure for Canaan include their condemnation of Egyptian acceptance of same-sex practice.

History of Same-sex Union

Understand here that I am not arguing against the idea of homosexual unions, but trying to clarify what marriage is/has been and why societies that wish to be successful generally endorse marriage for their citizens.

You argue that gay couples are somehow "temporary" as regards inheritance. Not true.
You insert the Red Herring of a PURELY gay society on MARS. That is irrelevant to the discussion. No one is suggesting that. (By the way, if there are WOMEN on your colony, there WILL be children.)
And then you incorrectly assert that ancient civilization didn't have or endorse gay marriage.

I'm going to conclude that you don't really know about marriage historically. And you are arguing against gay marriage based on the government's supposed benefits of marriage in society...

Regardless of the government's benefits, we don't get married for the government. We get married for our own reasons. If the government benefits, so be it. If not, too bad. My marriage hardly benefits the government and I'm permitted to do it anyway. So, it's a "limp" argument.

a reply to: ketsuko

That's untrue.

Same-Sex Unions throughout Time: A History of Gay Marriage

Ancient evidence survives of kingdom-sanctioned, same-sex cohabitation, as in the tomb drawings of Niankhkhnum and Khnumhotep Evidence exists that same-sex marriages were tolerated in parts of Mesopotamia and ancient Egypt. Artifacts from Egypt, for example, show that same-sex relationships not only existed, but the discovery of a pharaonic tomb for such a couple shows their union was recognized by the kingdom. Meanwhile, accounts of the Israelites' departure for Canaan include their condemnation of Egyptian acceptance of same-sex practice. In actuality, same-sex marital practices and rituals are less known in Egypt compared to Mesopotamia, where documents exist for a variety of marital practices, including male lovers of kings and polyandry. None of the recorded laws of Mesopotamia, including the Code of Hammurabi, contain restrictions against same-sex unions despite the fact that marriages are otherwise well regulated (Eskridge).

Not good enough?

Ancient Christian Church Performed Gay Marriages? Historian's Claims Spark Controversy

Hey even the Christians used to do it.

a reply to: ketsuko

Homosexual unions provide temporary stability. Try the thought experiment of colonizing Mars with a purely homosexual colony of homosexual married couples. How long will the stability last?

Oh - ketsuko - That is a whole lot of LOLZ right there

:-)

I think people play a little fast and loose with the whole though experiment thing sometimes

Here's how my thought experiment about Mars turned out: the stability will last just about as long as it will for the colony of straight couples - living in my head

Life on Mars is tricky and stressful. Kinda like here - on Earth

Marriages don't always work out. Stability is a word that can mean a lot of different things for different people. There are plenty of kids that come from homes where their folks stayed married - some will say it was a good thing - some will say it was horrible. There are kids that saw their parents divorce - some will say it was a good thing - some will say it's horrible

I have two gay friends that have been in long term relationships - one married. So far so good :-) If they should split up and go their separate ways, will that be proof that gay marriages are bad for society - and society's kids?

If unstable marriages are bad for society - that means straight people are messing things up just as much as anyone else

originally posted by: ketsuko
Homosexual unions provide temporary stability. Try the thought experiment of colonizing Mars with a purely homosexual colony of homosexual married couples. How long will the stability last?

You know, I just considered your thought experiment and to be honest, it would actually be BETTER for the colony to be homosexual. That way they can engage in all the sex they want without fear of overpopulation. It plays to both the population stability and scientific stability. Now that you don't have to worry about sex, the people in charge of the colony can determine when children are needed to grow the population. They could use various methods to impregnate a female and then put that child up for adoption to whatever couple wants it. There would never be a child to be born without parents wanting to take care of it, because you use the controls in place to make sure there is a ready family ready to accept the child. Therefore no more abortion and no more children stuck in state custody. Oh and don't try to say that in vitro and other third party methods are out of the question, if we are assuming the technology to adequately colonize Mars, then you cannot assume that the colony wouldn't have access to these methods of reproduction.

Now you may be wondering why population control would be an issue. Well think about it, Mars is a hostile environment. Without completely teraforming the planet (something vastly beyond the capabilities of our technology if it is even possible) we'd have to live in enclosed bubbles or buildings. While me may have the whole planet to settle, these buildings would restrict our space since we'd never be able to go outside without a protective suit. So space would be a SERIOUS concern. If the colonists are breeding out of control because of flawed contraceptives (and let's be real you won't be able to tell them NOT to have sex), then you will forever be trying to keep available space above the population level. Like on earth, but worse.

Heck the way I see it, a homosexual colony would be WAY more stable than a heterosexual one. But hey, why not read The Forever War? It's not like homosexual societies haven't been considered in science fiction already anyways. And yes, your thought experiment is a thought experiment in science fiction since we cannot even make a colony on Mars yet, let alone determine who should and shouldn't inhabit it.

ETA: One more point. All these musings would only be true for one generation. As soon as the initial colony of homosexuals creates the next generation, heterosexuality would be introduced into the colony. It's not like homosexuals only breed homosexuals or anything... So even your thought experiment is flawed in that a homosexual colony would become heterosexual in a generation without the parents even having to switch sexuality preference. But hey, at least homosexual intolerance would be nil.

My take on the entire marriage issue is as follows:

It is not the marriage part that we should be worried about, that will happen, in time, as society is starting to slowly accept and when it hits the Supreme Court, probably next year, it will go through and chances are that the US Supreme Court will rule in favor of same sex marriage.

But beyond that, what is at the bottom line is not the right to marry, but the right of one person to have another person in their life and be granted the same rights and protections under the law. The rights that a marriage grants to a couple are numerous. If a spouse gets sick, there is no need for a power of attorney, as the other spouse can make the decisions without having to present any more credentials other than his or her word and maybe a marriage license. There are tax advantages to marriage, as married couples are able to be taxed at a lower tax bracket. There are even legal protections for a married couple, such as in many states a lawyer cannot compel a wife to testify against her husband. And then there are things like death and benefits for being married. Even those who are on social security, if one spouse dies, the surviving spouse ends up getting a portion of the social security check. All of that goes into a marriage, all of those rights and legal protections all rolled up into one nice neat tidy package.

Why is it that it would be fair to allow for one group to get those rights and legal protections, and yet deny those same rights and legal protections to another group? Is it so inconceivable to the mass that 2 people of the same sex could be happy together, to act as a married couple through thick and thin, to do everything that a married couple does, yet in the eyes of the law, it becomes a legal nightmare and problem when it comes to say inheriting or legal protections or even making decisions for the other when they are not able to. There are same sex couples out there that have been together far longer than most married couples. And those that are together for that long, very rarely get divorced or split apart, choosing to stay together with each other till the very end.

If you look at some of the gay couples, though that are in their 50’s and 60’s, chances are they have been together for a very long time, and are like spouses, why destroy that or deny them the right to have their relationship, a long standing relationship validated and use that as a symbol.

The arguments that it will affect opposite sex marriages, that is just fear, as what goes on in your house, should remain there and it should not be the public that states what goes on there between 2 consenting adults.

a reply to: PansophicalSynthesis


Getting involved with marriage is not one of the enumerated powers of the federal government. It is a state issue. This is why the Defense of Marriage Act was, IMHO, unconstitutional.

originally posted by: NavyDoc
a reply to: PansophicalSynthesis


Getting involved with marriage is not one of the enumerated powers of the federal government. It is a state issue. This is why the Defense of Marriage Act was, IMHO, unconstitutional.

And the reasons for marriage being a state issue is archaic, outdated, and unnecessary.

It's one of those things in the Constitution that needs updating.

Federal trumped state when it made interracial marriages legal in all states. As it should be. Same thing.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: NavyDoc
a reply to: PansophicalSynthesis


Getting involved with marriage is not one of the enumerated powers of the federal government. It is a state issue. This is why the Defense of Marriage Act was, IMHO, unconstitutional.

And the reasons for marriage being a state issue is archaic, outdated, and unnecessary.

It's one of those things in the Constitution that needs updating.

Federal trumped state when it made interracial marriages legal in all states. As it should be. Same thing.

Careful what you wish for. If you give the federal government power to overreach into things you want them to, you give them the power to overreach in a way you don't want them to.

Defense of Marriage act and Racial Integrity Act of 1924 were both federal laws against gay marriage and interracial marriage respectively.

a reply to: NavyDoc

I am not anti government. Government is needed. You can look at a single family household and see chaos if there are no rules, no limitations. Multiply that by 300 million.

I am aware of what the original Defense of Marriage act was suppose to be and what it became.

Progress, step back, progress, step back --- yeah I get that. But progress usually wins out in the end.

Marriage is an equality civil right. It is not something that should have ever been put in the position of state voters. The states will never win this.

While states can make marriage law on age, waiting periods, etc ---- they can not make law that violates civil equality rights.

I am not blind to government power (FCC regulations, Michael Powell). But, action creates re-action. The anti-government people offer no solution. Less government means what exactly.

(And I'm on my iPhone right now, with the kid, bouncing off the walls, in a small trailer. There ain't gonna be links provided to anything I posted. But I did think about it )

a reply to: NavyDoc

Well, that argument can be made for almost any issue, really.

However, the fact that state did get involved, and through doing so then disparaged some rights that are attained/retained/obtained by others, they violated the constitution.

Even if a matter if left up to the state, the ruling still has to be constitutional.

In this case, the rulings are becoming unconstitutional because the state is using democracy as a means to vote in inequality.

originally posted by: Annee

I am not anti government. Government is needed. You can look at a single family household and see chaos if there are no rules, no limitations. Multiply that by 300 million.

Comparing households to the Govt is pretty weak. And basically shoots down your theory.

The household can manage itself, but the individual can't?

The need for bigger Federal Govt is not needed.

People can in fact self govern. It was done for some time before the Federal Govt became the bloated giant that it is.

originally posted by: macman
The household can manage itself, but the individual can't?

A Household can manage itself because there are rules. Individuals can manage themselves, but when they become part of a household (or society) there needs to be rules and enforcement of those rules for the individuals to operate successfully as a group.

originally posted by: macman

originally posted by: Annee

I am not anti government. Government is needed. You can look at a single family household and see chaos if there are no rules, no limitations. Multiply that by 300 million.

Comparing households to the Govt is pretty weak. And basically shoots down your theory.

Simplicity helps clarify.

People can in fact self govern.

Like the vigilantes on the border?

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

It is always different right???


So, a household can do this because they have established rules. But the person can't.

Always always different.



The need for the current Govt is not there. It is only self-serving and about one thing. More control over people.

And how is this pitched and sold to people????? False guarantees of security and safety, by taking from some to give to others.


The grand hypocrisy is fantastic. You want the Govt to control something differently, because it is not controlling it in the manner you want.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: macman

originally posted by: Annee

I am not anti government. Government is needed. You can look at a single family household and see chaos if there are no rules, no limitations. Multiply that by 300 million.

Comparing households to the Govt is pretty weak. And basically shoots down your theory.

Simplicity helps clarify.

People can in fact self govern.

Like the vigilantes on the border?

Since the Govt has stated they control the border, yet do nothing with it, the people are forced to act.

Maybe we should pass a some more laws, requiring the Govt to adhere to the old laws, which as enacted for older laws.

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

So, the gays can suddenly have children? They'd last beyond one generation?

a reply to: sdcigarpig

Ok, I don't deny most of this, but if all days wanted was the legal benefits, civil unions would have been the way to go. Instead, they are fighting for the word.

The other consideration is this - we change it. Now, what do we do for the next group to come forward, and polygamists are already suing using gay marriage as their precedent. And after them, who comes next? Because, if we are now saying that any two (or more) adults ought to be able to form a legal contract in the manner of a marriage, where does that end. Is there any arrangement of individuals who ought to be barred from enjoying this sort of contract?